So I’m logging in to get my personal mail, and what should I see? A news item claiming, “The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama.”
Intrigued, I read and digest the information.
Below is my response to Andrew Sullivan, item by item, line by line.
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.
This is the first indication that you, sir, have been smoking crack for a goodly portion of your adult life. Does anyone with a functioning brain stem actually believe that, just because Barack Obama is President of the United States of America, all of a sudden Jesse Jackson is going to drop the whole “racial identity politics” thing?
Ain’t gonna happen. Guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make quite a comfortable living off of race-baiting, and racial politics. It is their power base. And history tells us that people like that will give up such power when it is pried from their cold, dead, skeletal fingers. Even in that instance, wresting power away from their corpses will be a difficult task indeed.
You want a prime example? Take a good, long look at Detroit. Detroit has been run by black Democrats for around thirty years now, and the racism that breeds in that festering hole is as bad – if not worse – than before Coleman Young (the first black mayor of Detroit) took office. Kuame Kilpatrick goes to jail because he ruined the lives of three black cops – it’s the fault of the racist white suburbs. Sometime back, they even had a black politician down there that claimed that racism needed to be burned out of white people.
Guys like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Rev. Wright make a very pretty penny off of keeping racism alive in this country. If you honsetly think that some Johnny-Come-Lately to the scene is going to change all of that because he’s managed to fool enough “white-guilt” obsessed people, you’re not living in the real world.
Frankly, Andrew…can I call you Andrew?…you’re high to even think that item ten is even feasible outside of Fantasyland.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won’t touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain’s plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama’s. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
Let me say that again: HAH!
We’ve had two Democrat presidents since the current, out-of-control federal deficit was started under the Ford Administration. Jimmy Carter, with an all-Democrat legislature, nearly doubled the national debt. Bill Clinton nearly doubled it during his term as well. And these guys looked like fiscal conservatives next to Obama. Just what do you call taxing people who make over $250,000.00 per year, and giving a “tax break” to people who don’t even pay income tax?
Then there is the issue of the man actually doing what he’s promised to do on the campaign trail. Something that Democrat presidents have a hard time remembering, once they take office.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran’s nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush’s first term and George W.’s.
Again, are you high?
Realism? You’re joking, right?
I should point out that after three days of shifting positions, Barack Obama took THE EXACT SAME POSITION as “knee-jerk” McCain when it came to Georgia. As for “brinksmanship,” I seem to remember a liberal icon named John F. Kennedy who played this game for real, and got the Soviets to back down.
Consequently, Reagan and Bush 41 played the same game, and they brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
FDR played the ultimate game of “brinksmanship” with the Japanese and Nazis. The fall of the Axis Powers halted genocide that was being performed on unimaginable levels.
Then again, we tried the concept of “limited war” in places like Vietnam and Korea. We’ve seen how well that works – only going after the bad guys in an attempt to bring them to the negotiating table. Vietnam is now run by oppressive Atheist communists. The people in North Korea (another communist regime) are eating grass for nutrition. The last time I checked, the Jews and the Palestinians have been “talking” now for about fifty years. Guess what? They still hate each other. They still want to kill each other. Virtually every “peace accord” signed between these two bickering parties has been a dismal failure.
Brinksmanship works. Kissing the feet of thugs and dictators only makes you a slave. Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh, and that whole “bring back the respect of the world” crap is probably one of the most bogus claims I’ve ever heard. Unless you haven’t been reading the papers for…oh…the last one-hundred years, you’ll find that “the world”, which is mostly populated by a bunch of Marxist dictators and power-hungry wannabe tyrants, has ALWAYS hated us. Anyone whose foreign policy can be emulated amongst the high school “cool crowd” is only looking to get Americans killed, and put American interests at risk.
So please, or the sake of your health, put down the crack-pipe.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
First, Afghanistan is a NATO operation. It is (or was) under the control of a European general. The US has very little influence in how NATO prosecutes any military action. Only recenntly have the NATO commanders decided that more troops are needed, and a more aggressive posture should be assumed.
Second, the general who was in command of Iraq – the guy that was actually winning over there – his stated strategy was contrary to that of Barack Obama: avoiding a pre-defined deadline until victory could be certain.
Barack Obama has yet to say that he was wrong on opposing the Surge, which has been a resounding success. Even his own vice-presidential running-mate, as late as 2007, said that we needed to take out Saddam Hussein (which goes against Obama’s whole position on the Iraq war). There’s video of these statements out there. Funny how he changed his mind right after he was given the VP node by the Obama Campaign.
Obama and Biden have been so wrong so often when it comes to foreign policy and military matters, that it should scare the living hell out of any thinking American.
6. Temperament. Obamahas the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
You mean, like nearly coming to blows on the floor of the Illinois Senate?
Maybe he was being calm and collected when Rev. Wright was screaming “God Damn America”? You tell me.
5. Faith. Obama’s fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
Seriously, you need to put down the crack-pipe.
Anyone who has done a serious study of the Founding Fathers, and the foundations of our civil rights know that they come directly from the writings of John Locke. John Locke derived his ideas from Biblical texts.
Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington, Mason, and many others were heavily influenced by the ideas the the Enlightenment writers, but mainly Locke. They believed that because Man was made in the Image of God, that all men were free and equal. That governance – the submission of Man to the cause of earthly order – should be limited, and that government was a necessary evil.
Contrast this to Obama who thinks that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are documents of “negative rights”, limiting government from all the “good” that it can do for people. He also believes in the Marxist notion of redistribution of wealth (spread the wealth around). These concepts are the doorway to tyranny ala the Soviet Union. Because it puts men in the dominion of other men, and does so in an unrestrained fashion.
Not so surprisingly, the Soviets were Atheists. So are the brutal Red Chinese, as were the Kamur Rouge. In fact, the wholesale slaughter done in the name of Humanism exceeds even the most vivid delusions of the blood-soaked theocrat.
If Barack Obama had any reason whatsoever, he’d sound less like a member of the Politburo, and more like that of Abraham Lincoln. But he doesn’t. Too bad.
To be frank, you cannot be a Conservative and an Atheist. The two are mutually-exclusive. There is no rationality in Atheism, nor is there any rationality in the inner monologue of Barack Obama. His desire is for power and dominion over other men. He has all but claimed such.
Also, I doubt that sitting in church listening to a man screaming “God Damn America” into a microphone is what I’d define as the new “Christianism.” Andrew, I really don’t know how stupid you think the rest of the people around you really are, but everything I’ve read in the Bible is kinda contrary to everything Barack Obama says he believes.
Maybe that’s what the new “Christianism” is all about: paying lip-service to God, and them doing everything you’re not supposed to do?
I don’t think there is enough disk space allocated to this blog that would be sufficient to detail in just how many ways you are utterly, and totally clueless on this subject. One cannot resolve Atheism and Christianity without gutting the core principles of one or the other. It’s like making dehydrated water. One believes in a single God, the other believes in no gods whatsoever. There is no bridge. Whatever morality Athiests claim to have, they must borrow from religion. Period.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
Again, you’re high. See my comments on the racial situation.
Same mentality, same agenda, different group of people.
3. Two words: President Palin.
First – and this is exposing a Conservative secret here – Palin is the only reason why McCain is still even in the race. The attempts to paint her as an idiot (which is standard operating procedure for liberals, who are generally far more stupid than the people they claim are idiots) have virtually backfired. Palin has principles. Palin is intelligent. You know where Sarah Palin stands, and what she’ll do. The only people who don’t like Sarah Palin are either tried-and-true Democrats, or intellectual elitists not too happy that a woman with a larger set of stones is getting too much attention from the “Great Unwashed.”
Contrast this to either Barack Obama, or Joe (foot-in-mouth) Biden. Joe Biden, in fact, says so much outrageously stupid sh*t, so often, that it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the man. Cripes, they’ve got video of him saying that John McCain would make a great president! How about Biden’s amazing counting skills (I’ve got three letters for you: J-O-B-S)? The guy is a walking, breathing gaffe machine.
And you’re telling me to worry about Palin? What left-wing rag from La La Land have you been reading for the past decade or so?
They painted Reagan as an idiot in his time. They said he was all image, all marketing, and no substance. But, Reagan had principles. Reagan knew how to communicate those principles; state them clearly. Palin has these same exact attributes.
I’ll take Palin over the other three idiots in the race any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. And if this country could survive the sublime idiocy of eight years of Al Gore as VP, it’ll easily make it through two-terms of Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant fauxconservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today’s Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
First – most crack-smoking liberals don’t usually understand this – but “Republican” does not equal “Conservative”. There are lots of liberal Republicans: Lincoln Chafe was one, Olympia Snowe was another. Conservative Republicans are generally not big-spenders.
Secondly, if you honsetly think that by placing a big-spending liberal in a position of power, that somehow the problem will be resolved…
…Ok, enough of the crack references.
In this part, you’re partially right. In 1976, the Republican Party ran a moderate Republican against a far-left liberal Democrat named Jimmy Carter, whose policies and campaign promises (I might add) are eerily similar to those of Barack Obama.
Carter won. The moderate Republican lost.
Four years later, we got Reagan. We got Reagan because he was from outside the beltway, stood on his principles, and by that time it was clear that long-standing Republican voters were tired of electing a bunch of elitist snobs who lived inside the beltway.
And lets be honest here: after four years of that numskull Jimmy Carter, Lucifer would have been more appealing as president.
Finally, and I think this is key, if Conservatives are voting for Republicans, it is only because they can’t stomach voting for the Marxists and America-haters that infest the Democrat party. So, it ends up being a matter of degree.
I will confess: the choice between McCain and Obama has me pining away for the Clinton years.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America’s reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
This is utterly delusional.
First, it’s good to hear a liberal whack-job finally admit that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. But it wasn’t just Al Qaeda who was in Iraq. We now know that it was Al Qaeda, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas. Plus, Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up targets in Israel. None of this is in dispute.
After invading Iraq, Libya decided to give up its WMD program, and has decided to “play nice” with the rest of the civilized world.
We got Saudi Arabia to crack-down on its militant Islamists, we pushed Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (which is why they have to hide in Pakistan), broken up terrorst cells in the US, Canada, Europe, the Philippines, and Africa. Up until the bombing of the US Embassy in Yemen, we haven’t had a single terrorist act outside of the war zone.
As far as Iran being “empowered”…Iran has ALWAYS been empowered. They’ve been fighting us since the militants took over in the 1970s (under the Carter Administration, I might add). Where have you been living for the last thirty years? Mars?
The Israelies has had decades of “balanced” diplomacy. It resulted in more terrorism. The only lasting peace they’ve had over the life of their nation, is when they pounded the Arab forces in war. After that, the other Muslim nations pretty much left Israel alone.
The notion that the Bush years were abysmal as far as terrorism and foreign policy is based on pure, hysterical delusion. There is no truth to it whatsoever. The world has ALWAYS envied the US. The people who hate us now have hated us for decades.
What’s scary is that people like you, who pass themselves off as being somehow “informed,” haven’t noticed ANY of this.
Plus, if you look at any map of the Middle East, you’ll see that we have troops on both the eastern and western borders of Iran. Iran has been a LONG TIME sponsor of terrorism around the world. Even now, they fund and supply both Sunni and Shiia radical groups alike. Should we need to strike Iran, the only place to sustain an invasion – from a logistics perspective – is Iraq. Why? because it has a warm-water port, and borders the other warm water port we have access to in friendly Kuwait.
A prolonged military action cannot be easily sustained from Afghanistan. They do not have a port. Everything needs to be flown in. Airspace over certain countries can be restricted by threats of retaliation from Iran.
Obama running around like an idiot, claiming he’ll pull us forces out of Iraq (when it it the best place to stage an invasion of Iran) is probably the best thing the Iranian mullahs have heard in the last eight years. We’ll lose access to Iraq’s port, and have to negotiate with them (if they aren’t toppled by an insurgency) for overland access. No wonder a couple of the Iranian mullahs are endorsing an Obama presidency.
Again, put down the crack-pipe. You’ll live longer.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.
The only rash decision that could possibly made is the one that puts a radical, race-baiting Marxist named Barack Obama into office.
I think what’s clear is that of the ten points you detailed, you only got one-half of one correct.
Andrew, you are not a Conservative. Your ideas of Conservatism are about as warped as you can get. I guess this is what passes for “intellectualism” these days.
I’d argue this (and your other nonsensical notions) further with you, in a public forum, but I highly doubt that anyone, save a collective few, will read this post. Nevertheless, the invitation is open.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the e-mail or phone call.